[Foundation-l] Sexual Content on Wikimedia
me at marcusbuck.org
Fri Jan 30 01:30:29 UTC 2009
Thomas Dalton hett schreven:
> Topless sunbathing is a legitimate topic for discussion and it
> usefully illustrate by such a photo. So that rates pretty highly on
> "utility". I think it rates pretty low of "potential for harm" since
> the subjects aren't identified and they chose to sunbathe topless on a
> public beach. A photo where we have the subjects' permissions would be
> better, but I don't see how we could be sure of that (any kind of
> posing would ruin the photo - it would turn it from topless sunbathing
> to glamour modelling, a completely different topic). So I think this
> photo is appropriate.
The subjects aren't identified, but they are identifiable. They indeed
chose to sunbathe topless on a public beach, but being naked is a very
context-sensitive thing. A public beach is public, but it is still
unlikely, that you will be seen by people you know. That's very
different from being on the internets.
> It also rates
> low on "potential for harm" since it is almost impossible to identify
> the subject (it rates slightly higher due to being accidental, albeit
> reckless, rather than intentional as the sunbathing was, but that is
> overruled by the fact that you can't identify the subject).
"almost impossible to identify"... If I would know that girl, I would
recognize her. You don't need to see a face to recognize somebody you
know. This image is indeed harmless, it's just a little flick of slip.
Embarassing, but not the "humiliating" kind of embarassing, but more the
"oops" kind. But we have other ones on our projects, that are more harmful.
More information about the foundation-l